Movie review - "Deathproof" (2007) **

Its disconcerting when you realise a filmmaker doesn't appreciate his own strengths. Quentin Tarantino can write bright dialogue, but when his characters talk about nothing its only effective when something really important is going to happen, eg Pulp Fiction they chat about big kahuna burgers then go kill someone. He takes that to the nth degree with this film, which would have made a terrific 30 minute subject but has been expanded unmercifully to two hours. After a great opening sequence to the theme from Valley of the Giants it gets bogged down with around 40 minutes or so of a bunch of girls talking about going out and hanging at a bar and talking about a lap dance and drinking beer and listening to records and drinking beer and listening to more records and one of them sends a text, then gets a text then sends another text. Why include all this stuff Quentin?

It perks up for around five minutes when there's some car action. (Although even this is a bit mean - we've grown to like these girls. I mean one even gave Kurt Russell a lap dance). Then after a long chat from a detective that doesn't pay off there's another sequence with girls talking - they chat about old movies and who they're going out with and then talk about doing something with a car and they decide to do it then another girl wants to come along so they talk about doing it with her and blah blah blah. Then there's a terrific final car sequence. So there's bright spots just not a lot of them. This wouldn't have held up at 80 minutes either - please cut, Quentin!

I couldn't help feeling at times Quentin made the film to get laid or at least perv. Lots of hot chicks and plenty of shots and comments about feet and foot massages - and arses too. (No nudity, unlike 70s drive in fare). The actors are fine - Zoe Bell is a bit of a star but the others are good too and Kurt Russell is excellent value.

Movie review - "Bride of the Monster" (1951) ** 1/2

Curt Siodmark stepped behind the camera to direct this decent piece of jungle schlock, which seems to draw inspiration from The Letter and also Val Lewton films in that there may not be a monster.. Raymond Burr lusts after Barbara Payton so kills her husband after which he turns into a gorilla. Right on! Its silly but proceeds logically, the cast is a never ending delight - in addition to Burr there's Payton, who later became a hooker in real life and died mysteriousy, plus Lon Chaney as a native South American (!) and Tom Conway as a copper.

Book review - "Julian" by Gore Vidal

After a long break, Vidal returned to novels with a bang with this assured work that deservedly became a big best-seller. It takes a look at the life of Julian, Roman Emperor for a short time in the 3rd century when the Roman Empire was declining and becoming Christian; Julian tried to restore worship of all the Gods but died before he had the chance.The later Roman Empire is a period I'm not that familiar with - like most people vaguely interested in history, I guess, my knowledge of Rome pretty much focuses on the Julius Caesar-to-Nero period; as George MacDonald Fraser once pointed out, who knows anything about the later emperors apart from the fact that Hadrian built a wall and Trajan a column. Since Gladiator I would argue that a few more people are familiar with Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, but not of the others since then. Why has cinema and popular fiction shied away from the later emperors, the Christian ones? My guess its because (a) the empire was in decline, and declines are sad, and (b) Christian audiences perhaps didn't like to realise that once their religion became top dog, the persecutions started - it was easier to write tales about them being eaten by lions.

Vidal, through Julian and his supporters, makes a compelling case against Christianity - though I don't believe that Christians are the best in the world at suppressing other religions. Surely there are people in every religion who want their religion to be top dog? The book is unavoidably reminiscent of I, Claudius - even Vidal acknowledges this in the introduction - with its tale of a studious, bookish person becoming an emperor. Julian isn't as likable as Claudius, who was so sympathetic, but that's more history's fault than Vidal's.

The book did inspire me to read up about the Roman Emperors more. No wonder it's a period that continues to fascinate - there was such a variety: gay, straight, bi (most of them), elderly, teenage, fat, thin,black (if I wasn't mistaken), smart, dumb. By favourite was Honorius,one of the last - whereas most of the Emperors towards the end only managed a couple of years at most, Honorius reigned for over 20, despite overseeing the near collapse of the whole empire.

Movie review - "Michael Clayton" (2007) ***

Tony Gilroy is one of my favourite screenwriters and its great to see him making an assured directorial debut. George Clooney is the title character, a "fixer" at a law firm. He hates it, but you know having worked in a law firm I'd have thought being a fixer was a pretty interesting job - every day a bit different, full of unusual challenges,and you'd have a dirt file that would ensure you had a healthy retirement fund. But Cloons becomes disillusioned, though not as disillusioned as Tom Wilkinson, who flips out in one of those "movie cases" (big evil law firm representing chemical company being sued by poor-and-dying-but-honest farmers) making Cloons re-evaluate life. Very strong performances, including Tilda Swinton as a sympathetic baddie(maybe that should be "empathetic"), Wilkinson (what a great post-Full Monty career he's having), and Sydney Pollack (no wonder Pollack is such a good director he has such presence you'd do whatever he tells you to do).

You know how in conspiracy movies they don't normally show how people are killed so their dead body turns up mysteriously as a supposed suicide? Well, this film shows how you go about it - contacting the necessary men, giving the orders, how the break in and kill someone to make it look like suicide. Its very educational. In fact, the two hired goons in this film are a lot more effective "fixers" than Clooney, who in his two big fixing scenes is pretty useless (to a client who's run over someone he says "get a lawyer"; sent to get Wilkinson, Wilkinson escapes). Around the two-thirds mark this started to lose its way,mostly I'm guessing because Clooney becomes passively caught up in events. I think the final shot, holding on Clooney over the end credits, works.

TV review - "Bastard Boys" (2007) ***1/2

Intelligent adaptation of the wharfie dispute isn't particularly well directed (it feels as though it needs more music in the background or something) but is engrossing, once you get used to the actors, who at first seem to be a little bit "I'm an actor and I'm playing a wharfie"but then after a while are fine. The least actory is the guy who plays Greg Combes, though Jack Thompson was born to play a wharfie. The script could have done with a little more context of the history of the WWF and exactly why they were so despised by the conservatives and farmers - an opening epilogue touching on the Pig Iron dispute, all the strikes in the 70s, etc. The talking heads are a mistake - they never add anything to the drama you don't get from the action, and in some cases they distract from it eg when talking about big confrontation where violence was averted when another union showe up - why cut away to these talking heads? Why not show it? Also I think punches are pulled at the end when the union really sold its members short.

The mini series id quite fair to Chris Corrigan - but of course he whined about it. We all like to think we're the hero of our own drama.

Movie review - "The Four Feathers" (1939) ***1/2

For an action film this has a marvellous complex central dilemma - John Clements is from a military family; he is called off on duty to the Sudan but resigns his commission, claiming that his estates need looking after and it's a silly war - but in fact it's because he's a coward. Since this is an adventure movie, he goes off to war and proves his bravery through two effective set pieces - rescuing Ralph Richardson,who's been blinded in the sun fighting fuzzie-wuzzies, and saving two mates from a gaol.

I've often thought you could have made just a compelling drama out of Clements ducking war service because he genuinely thought the Sudan war was silly - being given four feathers,facing disgrace, etc on a matter of principle. The film (in the form of the doctor character) seems to say this would be noble thing - but it's not the real reason, its just plain cowardice, so having raised the issue they duck it. Which is a shame since the beginning of the movie is quite an effective critique of blind militarism - Clements' awful father, the lust for glory.

The film does not show these things in a glowing light - but cowardice is bad, so there's no doubt about that, so when Clements proves his bravery he serves the system and at the end of the film becomes part of the establishment again, even joking around with bloodthirsty C Aubrey Smith.

It's a shame they couldn't have done something like - and I know this is my PC-ness coming through - explored the notions of different sort of bravery, such as have another character who is a genuine conscientious objector, and Clements tries to make friends with him to cover his cowardice; or have Clements prove his bravery then come back and criticise the establishment. Those are things the Heath Ledger remake should have done - but that film couldn't deal with the concept of a white hero in Imperial times and introduced this black character who ran around saving Heath Ledger's life all the time. (I think they should have set that film during the Vietnam War).

Of the acting, two stand out - Richardson in what is the best role,really, and Aubrey Smith, who plays it like to the manor born, which he was. Clements doesn't really do justice to the potential of his role but he's OK; ditto June Duprez as the love interest. The two things that help this piece leap the years: the spectacle, with gorgeous colour photography and spectacular battle sequences (subsequently re-used in many other films), and the feeling of satisfaction that comes with Clements completing his mission of returning the white feathers.

Movie review - "Out of Sight" (1998) ****

A fascinating case study - a movie where they made all the right decisions, brought back Steven Sodebergh from Hollywood exile I guess you could call it, had two exciting new stars in career-defining performances, a rich galaxy of support actors, an excellent script from a "hot" novelist, romance and action, etc - but the public didn't come.Well, that's not the whole story - they came, but not in large numbers,and the film has remained an audience favourite ever since, not to mention providing a massive boost to the careers of Sodebergh, Clooney,Lopez, etc. So quality in the long run does out. The only reason I can think of why this didn't attract bigger audiences on initial release was that Clooney and Lopez weren't as big stars then - make it with them no wand it would go gangbusters. Or maybe the essentially sad nature of the romance counted against it. Anyway it's a marvellous piece of entertainment, a tribute to everyone who made it.